Missions, NASA Infographic: How the New Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Stacks Up Article written: 25 May , 2011 Updated: 18 Jan , 2016 by Nancy Atkinson Thanks to Space.com and the Tech Media Network for sharing this great graphic showing NASA’s “new” MPCV and how it compares with other human spaceflight vehicles. Source SPACE.com: Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) By Nancy Atkinson - Nancy Atkinson is currently Universe Today's Contributing Editor. Previously she served as UT's Senior Editor and lead writer, and has worked with Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy. Nancy is the author of the new book "Incredible Stories from Space: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Missions Changing Our View of the Cosmos." She is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador. Fuel Droplet Burning in Space is Psychedelic, ManThe Lone SuperStar human spaceflight, MPCV, NASA Related posts Carnival of Space #558 NASA Begins Construction of its New Quiet Supersonic Plane NASA Simulates Their Orion Abort System. Now That Would be a Crazy Ride 13 Responses Tom Nicolaides says May 25, 2011 at 6:58 PM So this new, slightly smaller Orion requires two solids and a hydrogen/oxygen core to launch? and the original Orion required a five segment solid? what the hell are we doing??? Log in to Reply Tom says May 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM Moving forward. Think of this as a launch/re-entry vehicle. Like the illustration shows, they will attach a module as the actual living space for the mission. They are probably giving up on the solid booster because of the vibration issues everyone was talking about. Log in to Reply Anonymous says May 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM If they do, it’ll be because somebody finally got the hint that an adequate launcher (Delta IV Heavy) already exists. Ares-I was unnecessary. Torbjörn Larsson says May 25, 2011 at 11:35 PM No, Ares-1 was necessary for the political pork shop. Tom Nicolaides says May 26, 2011 at 2:54 AM The Delta IV Heavy could certainly lift it. I think the Falcon 9 Heavy could as well. I’m not aware of any real plans to do either. Anonymous says May 25, 2011 at 7:08 PM This thing looks like a nightmare! Who would want to be stuck inside of this for three weeks? Log in to Reply squidgeny says May 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM If it meant being the first man on an asteroid I’d happily spend three weeks in a dumpster – can you honestly say you wouldn’t? 😉 Log in to Reply Martin Lefebvre says May 25, 2011 at 10:05 PM Personally, I prefer the Space X dragon because of the integral abort system. Less moving parts = less chance for break-down. Log in to Reply Tom Nicolaides says May 26, 2011 at 2:56 AM SpaceX is doing a lot of things right. I believe Dragon will carry people into space long before Orion does. Log in to Reply Tony Lages says May 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM Agreed. What the private space sector is doing right, NASA is doing wrong. Whereas Elon Musk has a vision for now, NASA has a vision for 30+ years from now. Torbjörn Larsson says May 25, 2011 at 11:54 PM First reactions: – Ugh-lee! We have learned over and over again that beauty often means robust and functional, see Apollo (say). It started when NASA had to accept the military solid booster legacy for political purposes and, it seems, it will never end. As a comparison, today automatic crafts like the MERs and Curiosity are easily more beautiful than the manned crafts. This is wrong! – Why do you need a large engine on the MPCV, if you want to add a trans/hab module anyway? Compare with the Dragon minimalism. [The naive answer is that they actually want to go for the unoptimized shown dual capsule mission profile/keep the Moon landing capability. Saves time, which they have used up on too little funding/too lofty goals. NASA = “Not Another Shuttle sub-optimization. Alas…” ] – I can recognize the convenient large ISS (I believe) docking port on the Dragon/Shenzou crafts. The MPCV will need a special ISS port, and maybe reduce safety with slower emergency transfers & insulation between crafts. – The chinese have done a terrific job with the large, modular and still light Shenzou. Log in to Reply Anonymous says May 30, 2011 at 7:55 PM I’ve seen a report titled “Initial Summary of Human Rated Delta IV Heavy Study” showing what (minimal) changes were needed for a D4 to exceed the performance of Ares 1 for human LRO missions using Orion. Should work great with the new CV. Log in to Reply Anonymous says May 30, 2011 at 8:00 PM Is the hypothetical shuttle-derived heavy lift launch vehicle mentioned in the caption the Jupiter 120?? Log in to Reply Leave a Reply Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.